mm 




Class 


TK 10 1?. 


Book 


C 










a 



TENTSTESSEE'S 

DEMAND FOR REPRESENTATION. 



A 



Assignments of reasons why Tennessee should have an addi- 
tional Eepresentative in the 41st Congress : 

First, in the enumeration of 1860. For instance, in 1840 she 
had an increase of population over 1830 of 147,306. In 1850 
had an increase of population over 1840, 174,507. At this 
ratio her increase of population in 1860 (pursuant to the rule laid 
down by Watson) should have been 218,904; but in the place^of 
this result the population fell off, as is shown by a comparison of 
the population of 1850 and 1860, more than 100,000. For in- 
stance, in many of the counties in the State the population of 
1860 fell below that of 1850. For example, the county of Gran- 
ger lost 1,408; Lincoln, 1,664; Fayette, 2,392; White, 2,073; 
Jackson, 3,948. So there was a loss in the counties of Bradley, 
McMinn, Marion, Marshall, Meigs, Montgomery, Morgan, Robin- 
son, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, and Wilson — nearly one-fourth 
of the counties in the State, while these counties gained largely in 
1850. The records of the country show these facts, attributable, 
(as shown by the statement of the Secretary of State,) to the dis- 
tracted condition of the country. Do thes facts not show an un- 
der-enumeration, and as strong a case for an increase of repre- 
sentation as did California? She was admitted by Act. of Con- 
gress, September 9, 1850, Ch. 50, with two Representatives, 
which by the Seventh Census, Act of Congress May 23, 1850, was 
declared to be correct, and all she was entitled to. More than 
two years thereafter, to wit: on the 2d of June, 1852, Ch. 91, 
Congress thought proper to legislate on the subject, when she 
was given an additional Representative, as was Alabama, also, 
because of its being made manifest their populations were under- 
estimated. By reference to the State of Michigan it will be seen 
she was admitted by Act of Congress 15th June, 1836, without 
prescribing the number of representatives, and all who were elec- 
ted took seats, no objection being raised. In the name of even- 
handed justice, is it not as fair and as manifest that Tennessee 
was underestimated, as was Alabama or California ; and is it or 
not as fair that Tennessee should have equal rights, and be so 
recognized? 



TKioti. 

Again : there is one other incontestible reason why you should 
recognize her rights promptly and responsively, to wit : by the 
14th Amendment of the Constitution you expressly said to Ten- 
nessee, in as many words, that if she would free her negro popu- 
lation you would give her representation. In as little time as 
could intervene, and with the utmost alacrity and despatch, she 
fully complied with your request in all things, which, when per- 
formed by her without the intervention of Proclamations or Re- 
construction laws, she has the right to expect, and does expect, 
good faith in the fulfilment on the part of Congress of her prom- 
ise, and as an earnest of her desires and expectations, has by a 
unanimous vote exceeding that cast for your Chief Magistrate, 
sent a Representative in her name to your door who most re- 
spectfully asks for justice, and who comes and demands — Fiat 
justitia ruit coelum. 

Extract from the Report of majority of the Flection Committee. 

The general apportionment act of March 7, 1822, gave to Ala- 
bama two representatives. The following year a special act, Jan- 
uary 14, 1823, ch. 2, gave her an additional member upon fuller 
information as to the number of her inhabitants. 

The act of September 9, 1850, ch. 50, admits California to the 
Union, with two representatives, until the next apportionment. 
Before that time the seventh census was taken pursuant to the 
act of May 23, 1850, and California declared, by virtue of her 
ascertained numbers, to be still entitled to two and only two rep- 
resentatives; and yet Congress thought proper, by act of June 
2, 1852, ch. 91, for reasons appearing in the body of the act, to 
accord to her one additional representative in the 37th Congress. 

These various acts have been collated at some pains, to show 
how completely the number of representatives in the House has 
been contested, at the discretion of Congress, a discretion scarcely 
less absolute than that of each House over " the elections, re- 
turns, and qualifications of its own members." 

This is illustrated by the arbitrary, nay, artificial numbers, at 
which the ratio was successively fixed, by allowing representa- 
tives for the fractions of the ratio, by the admission of new States 
with one, two, three, or more representatives according to their 
estimated populations, by reducing the representation of a State 
whose population had been reduced by the excision of part of her 
territory, by increasing the representation of States, as in the case 
of Alabama and California, when it was manifested that their 
population had been underestimated, and by determining the ag- 
gregate number of the House and requiring our executive officer 
to make the apportionment among the several States. 



It is illustrated even more forcibly, if possible, by the act of 
March 4, 1856, ch. 36, which increases the number of represent- 
atives from 233, the number established by the general law of May 
23, 1850, to 241, giving to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Illi- 
nois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island, each one ad- 
ditional member to which they were not entitled under the gen- 
eral law. 

In a word, these acts establish the general proposition that Con- 
gress has complete jurisdiction to adjust the representative num- 
bers of the House, and has repeatedly and constantly exercised 
it at discretion, according to the varied equity of each particular 
case. 

THE CASE OF TENNESSEE. 

The case of Tennessee is this : According to the census of 1860, 
the inhabitants of the United States, reckoning all free persons 
and three-fifths of all others, numbered 29,553,273. Divide by 
241, the number of members now composiug the House, it gives 
122,627 as the present representative ratio. Tennessee had 
834,082 free inhabitants, white and colored, and 275,719 slaves ; 
a total of 1,109,801. Three-fifths of her- slaves, however, added 
to her free population, on the principle of the representative enu- 
meration, made 999,514, by virtue whereof she has now eight 
representatives. 

In February, 1865, she, by voluntary act, a popular vote, manu- 
mitted and emancipated her. 275,719 slaves, nearly one-fourth of 
her population. Two-fifths of this number, 110 5 288, are thereby 
added to those already entitled to representation. This, with a 
previous representative fraction, leaves 128,785, for which the 
State has no representative, counting only the population as it 
was in 1860. This excess of popular numbers over the number 
of her present representatives is not the result of growth or nat- 
ural increase, in which the several parts of the country are pre- 
sumed to keep pace, at least, until the contrary is demonstrated 
by the census, but of a great political act as conspicuous and dis- 
tinctive as would be the annexation of a foreign territory con- 
taining so many people. For the purpose of this inquiry, it is as 
if the boundaries of Maine were, by treaty, extended to embrace 
Nova Scotia, with 110,288 inhabitants. Is it equitable and just 
that they should be denied a representative ? The undersigned 
think not. 

Since the voluntary action of Tennessee in emancipating her 
slaves, Congress has, taken not only an importaut step towards 
settling the status of American citizenship, but also indicating a 
further proper basis of representation. On the 16th of June, 1866, 
what is known as Article XIV was submitted to the legislatures 
of the different States. On July 20, 1868, this article was for- 
mally proclaimed as a part of the Constitution of the United 
States by the Secretary of State. The second section of said arti- 
cle, to which particular attention is invited, reads as follows : 



" Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States 
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of per- 
sons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to 
vote at any election for the choice of President and Vice-President of the 
United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial offi- 
cers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any 
of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and 
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participa- 
tion in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be 
reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear 
to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." 

This section, though general in its terms, was adopted with 
particular reference to the recently emancipated colored popula- 
tion, and is a declaration to the several States in which this popula- 
tion is found, that if they are enfranchised, the State shall be rep- 
resented accordingly ; if not, representation shall be diminished. It 
either means this, or is a mockery and means nothing. 

As soon as possible after the promulgation of the proposed 
amendment — on the 16th of June, 1866 — Tennessee convened 
her legislature and ratified it. She then changed her franchise 
laws to conform to the spirit of this amendment by removing 
from all colored people within her bounderies all civil and po- 
litical disabilities, and conferring upon them the right to elect 
and to be elected to every office, from the highest to the lowest. 
Having done this, and the 14th article having become valid as a 
part of the Constitution, what was before a claim for full and 
complete representation, resting in the discretion of Congress, 
became now an absolute, constitutional right. For it must be 
borne in mind always that this action of Tennessee has been her 
own, independent and in advance of executive proclamations, 
constitutional amendments, and reconstruction acts. She has 
met all the cenditions of the Constitution in a spirit of the 
most cheerful loyalty, and has created in her favor an obligation 
which cannot be cancelled by being denied. 

Her legislature, viewing the matter in this obvious light, has, 
by appropriate action, provided for the election of an additional 
representative. On the 3d day of November, 1868 — the day of 
the late presidential election, and the day designated by law for 
the election of members of Congress in Tennessee — the people 
of that State, fully impressed that they were fairly entitled to an 
additional representative, proceeded to elect, and did elect, the 
Hon. John B. Rodgers to the 41st Congress. 

It was a matter of general notoriety in Tennessee, some time 
before it occurred, that such an election would be held. The 
people of the State were duly advertised of the fact by the act of 
the legislature and executive proclamations. The friends of the 
present applicant for a seat brought him forward as a candidate 
at a popular convention, unusually largely attended, at the capi- 
tal of the State. The popular will was fully reflected at the 



polls in the fact that the applicant received more votes than 
were cast in that State on the same day for the prevailing 
presidential electoral ticket. The places for voting in this case 
were the same as those at which votes were given by persons of 
different political proclivities for different candidates for Con- 
gress, and candidates for electors for President and Vice-Presi- 
dent. Returns of the result in different counties were made in 
due form to the Secretary of State, as appears in official docu- 
ments, duly certified to. On these returns, after having been 
duly canvassed, the result was declared and a certificate of elec- 
tion issued by the Governor of Tennessee to the claimant, which 
has been presented to the House and properly referred. 

Thus stand the important facts in the case. The entire pro- 
ceeding, from its conception to its consummation, has been re- 
markably regular and consistent. 

The precedents cited as bearing upon the case are as weighty 
and significant as they are singularly numerous. It is believed 
they have not been, or cannot be, successfully met or explained away. 
These pointed examples of the unreserved exercise of legislative 
authority are, in themselves t a powerful warrant for the course 
which has been pursued by Tennessee. The vital point in the 
matter, however, is that Tennessee has not only followed "the 
line of safe precedent" but has conformed strictly to the true 
intent and meaning of the 14th article of the Constitution. 

The fact that Tennessee happens to be the first State to claim 
the practical application of the inestimable rights conferred in 
said article should not be regarded as anomalous or involving a 
precedent of doubtful or " dangerous policy." 

Objections founded upon any such reasoning are altogether 
likely to be speculative and fallacious, and lead to great injustice 
and wrong. 

To admit the correctness of the somewhat sweeping statement 
sometimes made that the admission of the claimant would be 
"a most dangerous precedent," would certainly be a most severe 
commentary upon mauy of the deliberate acts of the Congresses 
preceding the present. 

In the present instance Tennessee claims no right or privilege 
she would not willingly concede to any other State having a 
similar record. 

If, upon a fair investigation of the grounds upon which she 
bases her right to an additional representative, it is found her 
cause rests upon merit and justice, and is sustained by unques- 
tionable authority, her demand should receive a prompt and 
favorable response. To deny to her a manifest constitutional 
right upon the questionable and untenable objection that some 
other State may set up a similar claim, would surely afford 
abundant grounds for criticism, and come in direct antagonism 
with the policy heretofore maintained and pursued by Congress. 

The part borne by the 60,000 men of Tennessee who rallied 



6 

to the standard of the Union in the late great struggle was one 
upon which the whole country may look with gratification for 
all time. Of this number 20,000 were colored men whose devo- 
tion and patriotism was illustrated upon the historic and san- 
guinary fields of Franklin and Nashville. (Surrounded as Ten- 
nessee was by a cordon of slave States, she has no reason to 
look, other than with pride, at the course she has pursued in 
securing for our common country universal emancipation. 

It is notorious that a new era has been inaugurated in our 
country as to popular rights. By the wonderful results of the 
late rebellion, long-entertained theories have been overthrown 
and repulsive dogmas forever obliterated. Four millions of bond- 
men have been raised from a position of abject servitude to the 
high and responsible position of American citizenship. The 
conferring of additional representation in the case of Tennessee 
will not only be a proper recognition of the claims of the recently 
enfranchised portion of our fellow-citizens, but will evince a con- 
sistent regard for the late decree of the American people ex- 
pressed in their written Constitution. 

The committee therefore recommend the adoption of the fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved, That John B. Rodgers, upon the facts and circum- 
stances shown in his case, will be rightfully entitled to a seat in 
this House, from Tennessee, as soon as Congress enacts a law in 
relation thereto. 

ft c DAVID HEATON, 
E. R. BUTLER, 
. JOHN" CESSNA, 
S. S. BURDETT, 
J. E. STEVENSON. 



RECAPITULATION. 

Population of Tennessee was in 1830, 681,904) . ut . QAft 

1840, 829,210 j gam i4 '' oUD 

1850, 1,002,717— gain 174,577 

Same ratio in 1860, 1,219,801— gain 218,904 

Divide the population of 1860 (of 1,219,801) by the ratio of 122,627, 

would give Tennessee 9 Representatives and a fraction of 116,158 over. 



^i. 



r 



LBJL '05 



